Some Criteria for Acceptable Abstraction
Øystein Linnebo
Source: Notre Dame J. Formal Logic Volume 52, Number 3
(2011), 331-338.
Abstract
Which abstraction principles are acceptable? A variety of criteria have been proposed, in particular irenicity, stability, conservativeness, and unboundedness. This note charts their logical relations. This answers some open questions and corrects some old answers.
First Page:
Show
Hide
Full-text: Access denied (no subscription
detected)
We're sorry, but we are unable to provide
you with the full text of this article because we are not able to identify
you as a subscriber.
If you have a personal subscription to
this journal, then please login. If you are already logged in, then you
may need to update your profile to register your subscription. Read more about accessing full-text
Links and Identifiers
Permanent link to this document: http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1311875778
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1215/00294527-1435492
References
[1] Boolos, G., "The standard of equality of numbers", pp. 234–54 in Meaning and Method: Essays in Honor of Hilary Putnam, edited by G. Boolos, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1995. Reprinted in [Boolos:1998?].
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1376398
[2] Boolos, G., Logic, Logic, and Logic, edited by R. Jeffrey, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1675856
Zentralblatt MATH: 0955.03008
[3] Cook, R., “Conservativeness, stability, and abstraction,” forthcoming in the British Journal for Philosophy of Science.
[4] Hale, B., "Reals by abstraction. Abstraction and neo-logicism", Philosophia Mathematica. Series III, vol. 8 (2000), pp. 100–123.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1768940
Zentralblatt MATH: 0968.03010
[5] Hale, B., and C. Wright, The Reason's Proper Study. Essays towards a Neo-Fregean Philosophy of Mathematics, The Clarendon Press, New York, 2001.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2037746
Zentralblatt MATH: 1005.03006
[6] Linnebo, Ø., "Introduction [to a special issue on the bad company problem]", Synthese, vol. 170 (2009), pp. 321–29.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2540116
Zentralblatt MATH: 1182.03018
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/s11229-007-9267-5
[7] Linnebo, Ø., and G. Uzquiano, "Which abstraction principles are acceptable? Some limitative results", The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 60 (2009), pp. 239–52.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2525783
Zentralblatt MATH: 1174.03002
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1093/bjps/axp001
[8] Shapiro, S., "The company kept by cut abstraction (and its relatives)", Philosophia Mathematica, vol. 19 (2011), pp. 107–38.
[9] Shapiro, S., Foundations without Foundationalism. A Case for Second-Order Logic, vol. 17 of Oxford Science Publications, The Clarendon Press, New York, 1991.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1143781
Zentralblatt MATH: 0732.03002
[10] Shapiro, S., "Frege meets Dedekind: A neologicist treatment of real analysis", Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 41 (2000), pp. 335–64. Special Issue: Logicism and the Paradoxes: A Reappraisal, II.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1963486
Zentralblatt MATH: 1014.03013
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1038336880
Project Euclid: euclid.ndjfl/1038336880
[11] Uzquiano, G., "Bad company generalized", Synthese, vol. 170 (2009), pp. 331–47.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2540117
Zentralblatt MATH: 1186.03015
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/s11229-007-9266-6
[12] Weir, A., "Neo-Fregeanism: An embarrassment of riches", Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 44 (2003), pp. 13–48.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2060054
Zentralblatt MATH: 1071.03006
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1082637613
Project Euclid: euclid.ndjfl/1082637613
Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic
